Flick Intelligence LLC v. Vuzix Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Vuzix Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 6:25-cv-06281, W.D.N.Y., 05/30/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having a principal office and regular and established places of business within the Western District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartglasses, including the M400 Smart Glasses model, infringe a patent related to automatic focus prescription lens eyeglasses.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable displays that automatically adjust their lens focus based on where a user is looking, seeking to improve upon traditional static multi-focal lenses.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities but states that these agreements were confidential and did not contain admissions of infringement or impose any product marking requirements.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,465,237, “Automatic Focus Prescription Lens Eyeglasses,” issued October 11, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation of conventional vision correction, where users with multi-focal needs (e.g., for both near and far vision) must use bifocal or trifocal lenses, which provides an "awkward user interface" requiring the user to look through different portions of the lens. (’237 Patent, col. 1:18-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes "autofocus eyeglasses" that automatically and dynamically adjust their focal length. The system uses sensors to detect the user's focus distance—for example, by measuring physical changes in the shape and width of the user's own eye lens as it accommodates for focus—and a controller then sets the variable focus lenses to the appropriate power, while also applying an offset for the user's vision prescription. (’237 Patent, col. 2:17-25; col. 3:1-9; Fig. 5A).
• Technical Importance: This technology aimed to provide a seamless, fully automatic vision correction system that could correct for vision at varying distances without the manual effort or visual discontinuities associated with traditional multi-focal lenses. (’237 Patent, col. 3:47-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
• Claim 1, as corrected by the Certificate of Correction, requires the following essential elements:
  • One or two variable focus lenses.
  • One or two lens actuators to change the focus of the variable focus lenses.
  • One or more focus distance components, including an "eye sensor to continuously determine widths of a lens of an eye of the user" to detect the user's focus distance.
  • The lens actuators set the focal distance of the variable focus lenses in response to the detected focus distance.
  • The focal distance setting includes an "adjustment for a vision prescription of the user."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 2-16. (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "smartglasses, including, but not limited to, the M400 Smart Glasses," as well as "Passthrough and related systems." (Compl. ¶¶15, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are smartglasses. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of the accused product's operation, instead relying on infringement allegations detailed in a non-proffered exhibit. (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in a preliminary claim chart attached as Exhibit B. (Compl. ¶16). This exhibit was not provided with the complaint. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s M400 Smart Glasses and related systems practice one or more of claims 1-16 of the ’237 Patent. (Compl. ¶15).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be what mechanism, if any, the accused Vuzix smartglasses use to determine a user's focus distance. The infringement analysis will depend on whether that mechanism involves an "eye sensor" that "continuously determine[s] widths of a lens of an eye of the user", as specifically required by claim 1. Evidence will be needed to show whether the accused products measure the physical accommodation of a user's biological lens or use an alternative method, such as gaze-tracking or a range-finding sensor, that may fall outside the claim's scope.
• Scope Questions: A central question of claim scope will be whether the accused products perform an "adjustment for a vision prescription of the user". The infringement analysis will turn on whether this feature is present in the accused smartglasses and, if so, whether its implementation meets the claimed limitation. This raises the question of whether the products are intended to be worn over existing prescription eyewear or are designed for users not requiring vision correction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "an eye sensor to continuously determine widths of a lens of an eye of the user" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This limitation defines a specific method for detecting focus distance and appears to be a core technical element of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case for claim 1 hinges on whether the accused products, which are alleged to be "smartglasses," employ this particular sensing technology or a different, non-infringing alternative.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should not be read so narrowly as to exclude all other forms of focus detection. The specification also discusses determining focus distance by using an "eye tracker that is to determine the point of gaze" (’237 Patent, col. 4:2-3), which could be used to argue that "eye sensor" should be construed more broadly to cover various technologies that ascertain a user's focal point.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, requiring a sensor that determines the "widths of a lens of an eye." The specification reinforces this by describing the underlying biological process: "accommodation...occurs by changing the shape of the lens of the eye," and the eye sensor is described as being able to "measure changes in lens width or thickness." (’237 Patent, col. 3:2-9, col. 4:20-22). This language may support a narrower construction limited to sensors that physically measure the user's biological lens.

The Term: "adjustment for a vision prescription of the user" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is critical because it links the autofocus mechanism to individualized vision correction, a key problem addressed by the patent. The infringement analysis will likely require a factual determination of whether the accused smartglasses provide this function.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an optional "focus training mode" where the eyeglasses can "automatically learn the compensation necessary for an individual's unique prescription." (’237 Patent, col. 5:14-17). This could support a construction that includes various user calibration routines, not just the input of formal optometric data.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also explicitly mentions a user's ability to "input known prescription information, such as information based on a separate optical evaluation of the user's eyes." (’237 Patent, col. 5:2-5). This could support a narrower construction requiring the system to incorporate or process standard prescription data (e.g., sphere, cylinder, axis).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by encouraging and instructing customers on the use of its smartglasses through its website and product instruction manuals, causing them to infringe the ’237 Patent. (Compl. ¶17).

Willful Infringement

The complaint includes a conditional allegation of willfulness, praying for enhanced damages if discovery reveals that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’237 Patent and knew or should have known its conduct was infringing. (Compl. ¶VIII.e).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what mechanism, if any, do the accused Vuzix smartglasses use to determine user focus, and does that mechanism meet the specific claim requirement of an "eye sensor to continuously determine widths of a lens of an eye of the user"?
• A key functional question for the infringement analysis will be whether the accused products perform an "adjustment for a vision prescription of the user," as required by the claims, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.
• Given the Plaintiff's status as a non-practicing entity and its disclosure of prior settlements, a significant issue for damages will be whether the Plaintiff can successfully rebut any patent marking defense and establish a basis for a reasonable royalty.